[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [xri] Solution for host-meta
So I read that as your vote is for prefixing the host name with a OASIS defined URN. If we could make it Subject or Host I would be more comfortable with <Host> but we cant do that in the XSD. John B. On 25-Aug-09, at 5:02 PM, Scott Cantor wrote: > John Bradley wrote on 2009-08-25: >> The trust profile for SSL certs is going to have to deal with those >> issues. > > Ok. I'm just saying that no matter how you mock up a URI to wrap a > host (or > a host/port or scheme/host/port), there's some kind of extraction to > do. > Whether it's a URN or a wholly invalid fake URI doesn't change that. > My > point was just that if I was making the choice, I'd use a URN that > at least > I could defend the validity of. > >> In any event we need a URI that can contain the host name for >> hostmeta, and not be confused with a regular resource URI. > > Right. And URNs represent...whatever you define them to represent. > That's > what makes them different from URLs, which are always constantly being > confused with web-accessible resources. > > There are places where I've come around on that and just accept that > URLs > work better, but as we see, identifying a host doesn't seem to be > one of > them. > >> We are close to http range-14 territory. If we don't want to >> describe a host as a non-information resource, what is the URI. >> That is the crux of the problem. > > Recall that I argued for not using a URI here, and simply using > <Host>. > Having lost that argument, I'm just explaining why I find this idea of > making up URIs that aren't actually URIs but look like them to be > rather > silly. A URN is a perfectly valid URI and can mean anything you damn > well > please, and OASIS hands them to its TCs for free. > > -- Scott > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]